Alternate Interpretations

Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi p. 1-183

I don't think the notion that events, books, films, poetry, art, etc., are all open to interpretation necessarily undermines that any of these things took place or exist. We can all interpret events differently from one another, while all still believing the events actually happened. The question of whether or not something has occurred aside, we have different perspectives on whether an event is important, and different perspectives on why it's important. We can also interpret people's emotions and motivations differently. One person might think Romeo and Juliet were star-crossed lovers, while another person might think they were immature people who barely knew each other, and were more in love with their ideas of one another as well as the excitement and danger of the situation that being in love with one another would create. These two interpretations do not call into question whether Romeo and Juliet actually had a love affair, were caught in the stranglehold of a deep seated family feud, and killed themselves. The interpretation that they were not actually in love also does not undermine the possibility that they honestly believed they were in love with one another.
Satrapi actually seems critical of questioning the existence of events and "the material world." On page 12, she depicts a conversation between Descartes and Marx. Descartes says the rock Marx is holding does not exist because "it's only a reflection of our own imagination." Marx throws the rock at Descartes head, who says, "Ouch! What are you doing Karl, you broke my skull!" His response seems to indicate that the material world is very real indeed, as are the events that take place within it. And supposing that they were not, it hardly seems to matter since we experience pain and myriad other emotions as a result of these events, and suffer physical injuries (i.e. Descartes' broken skull).
Satrapi's reason for writing Persepolis, in part, was because many people (probably many in the US and Western world in general) interpret Iran as a nation of "fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism" (Introduction p. 2). While events relating to all three of these things certainly took place, Satrapi says this a limited interpretation of Iran. It doesn't take into account the vast array of "Iranians who lost their lives in prisons defending freedom," such as her uncle Anoosh who was arrested and executed for being a "Russian spy" (Intro p. 2, 68-70). We can interpret events in different ways and still agree that they happened. Our view of a country's character, like whether Iran is fundamentalist or a nation of freedom champions, is the more crucial interpretation.